Filed: Jul. 31, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2450EM _ Parveen Ahmed, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. American Red Cross, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 12, 2000 Filed: July 31, 2000 _ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. In March of 1997, the American Red Cross Missouri-Illinois Blood Services Region discharged Dr. Parveen Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2450EM _ Parveen Ahmed, * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. American Red Cross, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 12, 2000 Filed: July 31, 2000 _ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. In March of 1997, the American Red Cross Missouri-Illinois Blood Services Region discharged Dr. Parveen Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed c..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 99-2450EM
_____________
Parveen Ahmed, *
*
Appellant, * On Appeal from the United
* States District Court
v. * for the Eastern District
* of Missouri.
American Red Cross, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 12, 2000
Filed: July 31, 2000
___________
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
___________
RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
In March of 1997, the American Red Cross Missouri-Illinois Blood Services
Region discharged Dr. Parveen Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed claims that (1) the defendant
terminated her because of her race, religion, national origin, and gender, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981, and (2) the defendant retaliated against her for filing an earlier discrimination
charge, in violation of Title VII. The District Court1 granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. We affirm.
The plaintiff lost her job when the defendant underwent a reduction in force. As
is appropriate in a reduction-in-force case, in addition to the three normally required
elements of the Title VII or § 1981 prima facie case, the District Court required
plaintiff to demonstrate some additional evidence that race, national origin, religion, or
gender operated in her termination. Herrero v. St. Louis Hospital,
109 F.3d 481, 483-
84 (8th Cir. 1997). The District Court held that the plaintiff had not produced any such
evidence. We agree. Dr. Ahmed's evidence amounts to nothing more than a critique
of the defendant's business judgment in accomplishing its reduction in force. Although
she criticizes the decision-making process as ambiguous and unclear, she offers no
proof that the evaluation was influenced by prohibited criteria.
We also agree with the District Court that Dr. Ahmed cannot demonstrate a
connection between her participation in a statutorily protected activity and an adverse
employment action. Dr. Ahmed filed an EEOC complaint in 1993, and she was
discharged in March of 1997. The extended time period between these two events, and
the fact that the supervisor who ultimately discharged Dr. Ahmed was not a Red Cross
employee when she made her initial EEOC complaint, suggests that the two events are
not related. In response, Dr. Ahmed has not offered any evidence by which a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that there was a connection between the two
events. Accordingly, her retaliation claim fails.
For these reasons, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
1
The Hon. Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern and
Western Districts of Missouri.
-2-
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-3-